Talk:Secret police

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject, a wikiproject dedicated to improving wikipedia's coverage of law enforcement. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Secret police article.

Contents

[edit] NPOV Defition?

Took out line that real intelligence agencies aren't thought police. Served no purpose. Real intelligence agencies aren't frogs either.

If the United States Secret Service is not a secret police agency by objective measures (there may be a problem with the term as to how it is applied from a NPOV -- one man's secret police agency might surely be another man's mere elite police force) then what would be?

Stasi, the Gestapo. This actually isn't that difficult from a NPOV view since secret police tend not to be shy about the fact that they are secret police.
Is it really common for a police agency (using NPOV here) openly calls itself a "secret police agency"? Can you give me cites on this? --Daniel C. Boyer
Gestapo is evidently a contraction of the German for "Secret State Police", but I don't know German, so I can't verify this (I'm going by what the Gestapo page says.
We can remove from the list any organizations that denies that they are a secret police or denies using secret police tactics.
Doesn't the Secret Service admit, in its manual, to using, or at least the manual advocates the use of, some tactics that are "secret police tactics"? Wouldn't we have to include the Secret Service on this basis? --Daniel C. Boyer

Explain how an agency that operates in secret, that admits to using extralegal techniques (such as involuntary psychiatric hospitalization of people not because there is anything "wrong" with them but as a means of "protecting the president" or whatever protectee even thought the person is question hasn't committed any crime), and that has (arguably) been implicated in the attempted suppression of political dissent, is not a secret police agency?

Because they don't take people off in the middle of the night
But I'm not sure that, even if this wasn't true before, which I by no means concede, that under the new military tribunals, and under the disappearances of a number of people, principally immigrants though involving some American citizens, the Secret Service isn't involved in taking people off in the middle of the night. Certainly the FBI is. --Daniel C. Boyer
and shoot them, and they don't have independent authority to detain people. Because while the Secret Service can do "bad" things, they are nowhere near as bad or extensive as the Gestapo or Stasi.
Simply put, people are not afraid to tell jokes about the president out of fear that they are talking to a Secret Service agent who is going to arrest them.
But here is an example of the Secret Service "'determining what action if any can be taken'" because of, while not really a joke, a cartoon which I think is clearly not intended to be a threat against George W. Bush, and the "determination" of this question may be intended to have a chilling effect on certain types (perhaps very narrow, but still) of political expression: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030722/ts_nm/iraq_usa_cartoon_dc_3. While I am not stating as fact that this is evidence of the USSS as secret police, I am saying that it is my opinion that this type of thing at least tends to undermine a claim that the theory that the SS is a secret police agency is a "crackpot theory". --Daniel C. Boyer 22:12 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I believe the article (especially when including the other half of the quote from the USSS spokesperson that you cited) shows that the USSS is attempting to comply with (a) their statutory obligation to investigate possible threats against the people they are charged to protect (especially, the President) and
My point here is that many people (including myself) see this as obviously being so far from being a threat (is Ramirez supposed to be "Politics"? Come on!) that they have to wonder how the Secret Service can be saying this in good faith. There either is a profound level of idiocy here, or the Secret Service is acting to protect Bush from the discomfort of seeing himself drawn with a gun pointed to his head (though the professed purpose of the cartoon is to support him). --Daniel C. Boyer 15:31 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
(b) they are trying to follow the law.
You're kidding, right? The relevant law is 18 USC §871; the relevant language [(]if taken to apply to the cartoon, would require it to[)] "[contain a] threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States." Do you really believe for a minute that the Secret Service believes this cartoon is or could be a threat to kill Bush, to kidnap him, to injure him? Give me a break. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:31 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Secret police are not really known for speaking to the free press, nor following the law, nor studying situations before taking action.
Be precise! Obviously secret police at least at times study what, in their opinion, they should do. Are all of the actions of the secret police totally precipitous, automatically performed? I think what you mean is, the "studying" of the secret police takes place in secret. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:31 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Nobody was kidnapped, nobody was executed, nobody was even arrested or detained (although, if he broke the law...). Yes, an agent of the USSS showed up to ask if he could ask questions, but how is that a secret police action? It basically fails to meet any of the three required criteria of being a secret police: secrecy, terroristic methods, suppression of sedition/dissent.
The argument applies to suppression of sedition/dissent. The cartoon in question may not be sedition/dissent, but the Secret Service has indicated that they might interpret it in this way; the real point of these "explorations" is that they might protect Bush from the initial discomfort of this cartoon, supposed to support him though it is. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:31 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Aren't they supposed to investigate when there is a potential threat of violence against the President?
No, not exactly. In the United States there has to be suspicion of an actual crime -- not that there be a "potential threat of violence" but that 18 USC §871 may have been violated (a fine distinction but an important one) -- before there can be "investigating." The Secret Service would have to believe that Ramirez might possibly have violated 18 USC §871. The barest glance at the cartoon would (in my opinion) make impossible the belief that Ramirez was saying that he would kill Bush. I think the Secret Service is working on something else here, and that possibly or colorably that something at least comes close to secret police activity. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:31 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I don't really see how the mere fact that the USSS made the news makes the crackpot theory that they are a secret police force any more valid -- it seems to me that the only person who would interpret this as a sign that we have the Gestapo/KGB/etc. among us is indeed a crackpot. Anyway, here's the LA Times own article about the situation. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0722times-cartoon22-ON.html It seems like they have acted appropriately. Re: "chilling effect", you know it is illegal to threaten or call for violence against the US President? That's the law in basically every country for their leaders (elected or not). (I don't think the article was intended to do that, but the USSS is right to double check.)
Double check what? Is the Secret Service that dense that it can't understand a blatantly obvious political cartoon? The figure with the gun is labelled "Politics," not "Ramirez." In my opinion we have to choose between almost limitless stupidity and an ulterior motive. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:31 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Not all forms of speech are protected. --Daniel Quinlan 00:04 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just by applying the ridiculous standard "the United States is a free country" or "something associated with the United States can't be like the secret police agencies of those other 'bad' countries"?

But you miss their purpose of a secret police. A secret police works because everyone knows that they are there and are afraid of them. Most people are not afraid of being arrested by the Secret Service.
Come on! --Daniel C. Boyer

By the definition laid out in the article ("A secret police force is a police organization that acts in secret, either to suppress sedition or terrorism or as a means of enforcing a police state") the USSS fulfills at least some of the requirements. It is a police organization, it acts in secret, it admittedly plays a role in the suppression of terrorism, and there are (colorably) legitimate accusations about its role in the suppression of sedition. --Daniel C. Boyer

I think you have a point that the definition in the article needs some work. I referred to several dictionaries (Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Cambridge Advanced Learner's). None of the dictionaries mentioned suppression of terrorism or normally illegal acts. Two mentioned the frequent use of "terroristic tactics" and one mentioned the use of "illegal and violent methods". I'm not sure whether all of the secret police organizations listed (excepting the USSS) did anything illegal according to their country's laws during the time of their existence, so I went with "terroristic". I think it's safe to say that the Gestapo scared the crap out of everyone in Nazi Germany, for example.

The other characteristic shared by all was that secret police operate to basically get rid of any political opposition, people who oppose the government, etc.

But it is practically beyond question that the FBI and Secret Service, while they may not be attempting or have attempted to "get rid of any political opposition," that they have at least at times operated in this way. See United States Secret Service for some discussion of this. --Daniel C. Boyer
See particularly the Ohio State, Avakian and involuntary commitment situations. These can be disputed but the United States Secret Service being a secret police agency is at least a colorable question. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:21 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Anyway, I think the new description/definition captures the essence better. I also made a few other minor changes. I changed "secret" to be "primarily in secret"

Good. There must be some finesse here, as "normal" police agencies obviously conduct some of their work in secret (for example, keeping some details of their investigation of criminal activity private), and we must distinguish this. --Daniel C. Boyer

since I'm sure some operations of these agencies are not secret and I also removed "terrorism" as one of the targets of suppression. While "terrorism" may be connected with dissent, I think that widens the scope of the definition too far (and it is unmentioned in any dictionary entry which was the basis for my changes). -- non-user at 216.103.211.240

Infoplease says that the operation of a police force "without giving warning to the suspected criminal" may mean that that force is a "secret police" force. Surely this is somewhat characteristic of the United States Secret Service (more so than a "regular" police force), as is its tendency (with the exception of the uniformed division, who are more in the role of bodyguards) to have agents out of uniform, another thing that Infoplease implies brings a law enforcement agency closer to being a secret police force. --Daniel C. Boyer
I don't think there is any police force that makes a policy of warning the suspected criminal before making an arrest (except perhaps in certain white collar crimes). The main attributes that make a "secret police" are:
  • operates primarily in secret
  • uses terroristic methods (making people disappear, killings, threats against family, etc.)
  • suppresses dissent (political dissent)
--Daniel Quinlan
Your saying "I don't think there is any police force that makes a policy of warning the suspected criminal before making an arrest" is not only well-taken, I would say, but obviously true. Perhaps I should have been more precise that my argument is with Infoplease. The problem is that the main attributes are either definitely applicable (it operates primarily in secret) to the United States Secret Service, or there have been allegations that they are applicable (a very short selection of allegations that it is in fact involved in suppressing political dissent is included in United States Secret Service. The Ohio State and Avakian situations are seen at least by some people to be troubling, and the Secret Service's practice of attempting to get people involuntarily comitted for tactical reasons rather than the mental illness of the person involved some people may not call "terroristic," but is definitely (in my opinion) illegal and something which would be characteristic of a secret police agency. (Tangentially related note: I find the accusations against the use of psychiatry against political dissidents in the former USSR amusing given that many of the same accusations apply equally to today's U.S.)
I re-read the Infoplease article. You're right: it's crap. Among many other problems, it basically says that even plain-clothes detectives of the NYPD or a similar local police will become secret police. They are only a hair's breadth away from asserting that there's no difference between "police" and "secret police". I was mistaken to include it. --Daniel Quinlan 00:04 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
This article has got to at least acknowledge that there are allegations that the USSS is a secret police agency. --Daniel C. Boyer

[edit] Ton Ton Macoute

What about the Ton Ton Macoute in Haiti -were they a secret police force or just some vicious thugs? Rmhermen 00:23 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think so, although they are perhaps a slightly different type of vicious thug from most other secret police. From what I read on the web, I think they probably fit the definition: death squads, terroristic methods, supporting the dictator's government, etc. Not sure about the primarily operating in secret part, but the term "secret police" seems to be freely applied to them. --Daniel Quinlan 01:36 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Remove list of Agencies

Shouldn't the different agencies be removed since they are covered in this article: List of intelligence agencies? Dori 22:33, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, intelligence agency is an orthogonal category to secret police. Not all secret police organizations are intelligence agencies and most certainly not all secret police are intelligence agencies. Daniel Quinlan 22:52, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
I wouldn't say they are orthogonal. I think the info on this article and that on Intelligence agency should be merged in one (perhaps the difference can be explained there), and the list of the agencies should be moved on its own (whether at List of intelligence agencies or some other article that encompasses both, but perhaps in two sections if you want). I think this way it would be clearer. Dori 22:56, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
There is overlap, but they are very different things. I mean, read the definitions! Lumping them together would be like lumping together war criminal with soldier. Only some of the listed intelligence agencies qualify as secret police organizations. Listing them separately makes sense and seems much clearer to me. Providing a link to secret police on intelligence agency pages would probably be helpful since it is not even mentioned that some intelligence agencies also act as secret police on intelligence agency that some are secret police. Daniel Quinlan 23:19, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
I know that in principle they are different, but in practice (especially in communist/dictatorial regimes) they are often one and the same. I don't feel that strongly about it, so I'll leave it as it is. Dori 00:45, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] FBI as Secret Police?

As it is based on my own personal experience, and thus is possibly biased (and some people might call it anecdotal or worry about its verifiability), I do not argue that it should be included in the article, but I have been informed that the FBI attempted to inquire into my reading habits. I just think that those who continue to pretend that the US is a "free country" should be aware of this. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:36, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should believe that's true given your past history of self-exaggeration, but you can always request your FBI file. Expect some information to be blacked out if, for example, a person has informed the FBI that you committed a crime, don't expect to find out their name. Anyhow, I don't think it's common practice in police states to give out personal files, much less to receive such a request without arresting/executing/etc. the individual making it. Daniel Quinlan 23:02, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're bringing up an off-the-subject standard. My question would be why, if the U.S. is a "free country," and given the First Amendment implications, law enforcement agency goes around investigating the reading habits of people. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:28, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Well, for example, if person X posted or said "I am going to blow Y up" or something to that effect, I suspect a common investigative technique would be to see if that person had recently purchased bomb-making materials or information about how to build a bomb.
I wish to make clear that nothing like this was the case as applies to me. I had not committed any crime, and there was no reason whatsoever for the FBI to mistakenly think that I did. It was just political persecution plain and simple. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:01, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I think it would be a stretch to say the First Amendment applied here. If you want to complain about the US government, you should know what you're talking about. The most applicable amendment to the US Constitution is the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable search and seizure (which, incidentally, I think is being improperly implemented in the case of drug crime seizures without a conviction, but that doesn't lead me to claim we live in an unfree country, just not a perfectly free one).
I don't know why you think this is a Fourth Amendment issue, as to my knowledge this didn't involve a search of records kept by the store. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:01, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I said, "most applicable", not necessarily "applicable". Depending on the technique used to make the inquiry, it would at least need to be considered. First amendment still would not apply as far as I can know.
Is it your position that the FBI, absent an investigation into a possible crime of which a person is suspected, is legally and consitutionally justified in conducting inquiries into what a person is reading (First Amendment-protected activity)? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:32, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
How much clearer can I be? Inquiries into what you are reading is not protected by the first amendment.
But given the First Amendment, and given no crime being investigated by a law-enforcement agency that it has a bona-fide belief that the reader is either a potential suspect, a "person of interest," or is somehow connected to, what justification is there for investigations into what someone is reading? Isn't this practice characteristic of a secret police agency? In a country with a First Amendment what justification is there, in the abscence of a crime (including conspiracy, anticipating your possible response), for the FBI to investigate purely First-Amendment protected activities? --Daniel C. Boyer 21:16, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
It's protected by the fourth amendment, so they need a search warrant (or other reasonable cause as defined by prior case law), I'm not sure what case law says if the bookstore/library decides to cooperate -- it might still require a warrant if it's construed as being part of the suspect's "papers" (which is mentioned in the amendment text). Daniel Quinlan 19:24, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)
And the Fourth Amendment is now a dead letter, given Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:23, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Anyhow, given your lack of proof that such a thing happened, that the FBI did it, and also with your past history of self-exagerration, I don't think we should consider your claim of FBI persecution of your political views as a verifiable fact. Daniel Quinlan 21:49, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)
Daniel Quinlan 00:32, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

Can we please stop adding western intelligence agencies to the list. These are not 'secret police' organisations under the generally accepted definition of the term. They do not use torture and murder as a matter of course and people do not disappear into their own prisons never to be seen again. MI5 have no powers of arrest. MI6 and the CIA only operate abroad. GCHQ is only a listening post. These cannot be regarded as secret police agencies, no matter what your political views may be. All counterintelligence agencies have the capacity to act in this way, but there is no point adding them to the list since there is already a perfectly good List of intelligence agencies and this would merely be duplication. The only exception is if they did quite clearly act in both capacities (the KGB, for instance). Please, this is an encyclopaedia, not a place to air political views or pet conspiracy theories. -- Necrothesp 10:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pleeeeeease try to keep to NPOV. The agencies you've removed from the list did belong there Necrothesp. Only your personal political POV is expressed in your removal of them.

--wayland 11:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • My political views have nothing to do with it. You have no idea what my personal political views are (from your comment, trust me that you don't!). Justify any of these agencies as a secret police force. I've stated why I don't think they are. And you accuse me of being NPOV! -- Necrothesp 11:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Okay, justify any of these agencies as a secret police force? Will do.
    • First I'll put forward some characteristics of secret police forces which we can apply as a yardstick.
    • 1) They have to be some sort of organisation which "polices" something i.e: monitors what's going on somewhere and intervenes in some way where they decide intervention is called for.
    • 2) They have to have some measure of secrecy about their work and some difficulty involved in calling them to account.
      • I would like to interpolate that the level of secrecy has to be beyond what an average law-enforcement agency, such as a local police force (as all law enforcement agencies have to have some level of secrecy, not publishing confidential details of their investigations in the newspaper, say), would have, and the FBI and Secret Service certainly qualify on this count. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • I certainly agree that, for a definition, some of the level of secrecy needs to be of an unusual order, but not at all times. There are times when it would suit a secret police to be open about some of their activities because it scares people and keeps them in step. At other times or in other matters it would suit a secret police to deny everything.
          • Agreed. I think it could be put that "at least at some times, the level of secrecy in a secret police organisation will be greater than that maintained by a regular law-enforcement agency." --Daniel C. Boyer 14:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Okay, if we can agree upon those parameters we can use them as a yardstick to examine specific cases:
    • The FBI obviously answers to the first parameter. Moving on to the second one, here's a quote from the Washington Post, June 18th 2004: "The Patriot Act was passed by Congress at the Bush administration's urging six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The law strengthens the executive branch's power to conduct surveillance, share intelligence with criminal prosecutors and charge suspected terrorists with crimes. Critics have been frustrated that the law allows many of its most controversial powers to be carried out in secret."
    • Does the Washington Post have justification for reporting this issue? Are they reporting the news or expressing a biased POV? I believe they are reporting the news.
    • The disclosed documents the Washington Post is referring to in this article (read the entire article online at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50524-2004Jun17.html ) were only released because of the decision of a federal appeals court judge. That's how we know the USA is still a democracy, because the government's desire to keep these matters secret can be thwarted by the decision of a single judge who cares about freedom. However, being a democracy doesn't prevent secret police forces from existing, it only puts counterforces in motion against such secret policing.--wayland 12:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I partly disagree with your first point. I believe an agency can only be called a police force if it has police enforcement powers. The FBI, I grant you, does, but other agencies you have listed do not (MI5, GCHQ, for instance). If you want to add the FBI, then I won't delete it (although I suspect somebody else will), but the other agencies I just do not accept as secret police agencies. An agency which monitors but does not enforce is not a 'secret police' agency in my opinion. That is why the term police is used in the phrase secret police. Nobody (including themselves) is denying that these are secret services, but as you well know secret police carries connotations which are not generally appropriate here. Agencies which only operate abroad (MI6, CIA) are also not secret police agencies, but intelligence agencies. Is there a difference between the American, British and French intelligence agencies and other intelligence agencies worldwide? If there is not (and I do not see how you can justify a difference), then adding them to the secret police list merely duplicates information which is found elsewhere. I am interested as to why you think that is necessary. -- Necrothesp 13:38, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Stricta sensu I belive we should not list the CIA, MI5 or GCHQ, but should list the FBI and United States Secret Service. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Seems reasonable. -- Necrothesp 15:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, what can I say? You're using phrases like: "I just do not accept"

and "is not a 'secret police' agency in my opinion"...

    • These are very POV phrases. I'm trying to bring this article back to NPOV.

I hope this can be accomplished by debate here.

      • This is a talk page. I have not used POV phrasing in the article. -- Necrothesp 15:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The term "police" refers to an organisation with a wide variety of departments. The departments which monitor information are police just as much as the departments which patrol the streets.
      • But there is a point to be made here which is that the bureau, if you will, of the police department which monitors information is part of the police department rather than forming its own agency. I will leave to others the possible suggestion that this is hair-splitting but to me it is certainly colourable. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Should we say that the chap who works in the records section of the police is not police but his colleague who works traffic detail is.
      • If all he does is work in the records section and he does not have full police powers then no, he is not a police officer. That's why police agencies employ police officers and civilian staff. They're separate. It's the individual's powers that make him a police officer (in Britain, whether he has been sworn "in the office of constable"). -- Necrothesp 15:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Anyway, I've taken up your suggestion of putting a page in for "secret service". A page with this name did exist, but was only a re-direct. I've begun an article to explain the ambiguity surrounding the term "secret service" and how it can relate to "secret police" and "intelligence agency".
    • You've claimed secret police cannot operate abroad but you've given no logical reason for this seemingly arbitrary restriction of the definition. Ordinary police operate internationally (I mean ordinary as opposed to secret) so why do you say the secret kind can't?
      • Again, what's the point of duplication? If an agency works overseas then it gathers intelligence, since it generally has no police powers in other countries. It is therefore an intelligence agency. -- Necrothesp 15:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • As for duplication, there are pages with articles and pages with lists. I'm trying to build an article here (with a list on the end of it) and you're referring to list pages which are only a list.
    • I suggest perhaps you could make a separate page called "List of secret polce forces" or something similar and link to it from the secret police article page.
    • --wayland 14:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know I'm getting to this discussion a tad bit late, but since we're trying to "define" a secret police force, why don't we go from accepted definitions, instead of trying to make up our own. here's a nice list. Here are some samples:

  • a police force that operates in secret and whose function is to prevent subversion or suppress political opposition to a regime
  • a police force working in secret against a government’s political opponents
  • a police organization operating for the most part in secrecy and especially for the political purposes of its government often with terroristic methods
  • a police force that conducts undercover operations designed to discourage opposition to the government
  • A police force operating largely in secret and often using terror tactics to suppress dissent and political opposition
  • a police force that functions as the enforcement arm of a government's political policies and whose activities, which often include surveillance, intimidation, and physical violence as a means of suppressing dissent, are usually concealed from the public

You'll notice a common theme in all of these: "to prevent subversion or suppress political opposition to a regime." What this suggests to me, is that there is no real controversy over what a Secret Police force is. Only one of the links goes into more detail. This makes me think that this page, if it's goal is simply to define SP, is going a bit past it's goal. The controversy about what "borderline" organizations are or are not SP is irrelevant to the actual definition, which is well established. It blows my mind that there are no examples of definite SP forces on this page. No mention of the Nazi SS, or of the Soviet KGB and it's affiliates? But you want to bicker over whether or not the FBI is one? I think you are all missing the point of a definition. - Bornyesterday 15:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and just a note, members of international terrorist groups are not subversives (people who act to overthrow from within) or political opposition members (as they have no political standing within the country) - Bornyesterday 15:30, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FBI and United States Secret Service

These do not fall under the objections of Necrothesp and I think their listing might be appropriate here. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've separated the list onto its own page so that conflicts between what can be listed and what can be mentioned are resolved.
--wayland 15:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is there even a conflict over the FBI and SS? I'm only aware of the conflict about things along the lines of the CIA. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, my message about separating the list was intended as stand-alone, rather than as a reply to your message. Yes, I agree there probably shouldn't be conflict over the FBI and the SS. :-)

--wayland 15:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've remerged the list of historical agencies back into the list of current agencies. Doesn't seem much point in separating them if we're going to have a list separate from the article. -- Necrothesp 15:38, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, okay, but it isn't very easy on the eye that way. I mean when I look up and down the list I keep thinking I'm looking at the "europe" part of the list and then I find I'm looking at the other "europe" bit from the historical list. Maybe it's because I'm getting older and my eyes are wearing out, but people reading the encyclopedia might have the same problem though.

--wayland 15:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Hmm. I think it looks neater. Oh well. -- Necrothesp 15:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] German Democratic Republic

Page as it is now glosses over complexities of naming it "DDR" but I am unsure how to approach this without biting off more than I can chew. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

    • But that debate would be on the "East Germany" page surely? I notice that page has recently been protected and then unprotected again. The relevance here is that they called themselves democratic, which illustrates that very different systems of government can use (and have used) the word "democratic". There are different models of democracy, and that's another debate again which, I suppose, should live on the page about democracy. --wayland 22:04, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes; my thinking was just that this should be redone somehow to bring up exactly this point. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • I've written something bringing in a link to the democracy (varieties) page. Is it the sort of thing you had in mind or does it require more of a rewrite?

--wayland 07:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

    • I've been informed I caused this, sorry. I've considered adding some DDR explanation text in again. Here's what I've decided on so far: "For example, East Germany (The German Democratic Republic) maintained it's Ministry for State Security, the Stasi, which has since been reckoned as one of the most complete such agency, the United Kingdom's treatment of the Irish..." Comments?--68.39.60.203 18:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior

I'm sorry, but the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, while it can indeed be described as an act of state terrorism, or at least as a violent illegal act of one country on the territory of another, cannot be adequately put in the category of "secret police". David.Monniaux 13:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So, acts of terrorism, by secret police are not classified as 'adequate' for this article? Does the Rainbow Warrior actully NAME the secret police? I guess that in-adequate would also leave out the CIA?
[1] | Stockwell is a 13-year veteran of the CIA and a former U.S. Marine Corps major.]

"We do it in a way that gives us plausible denial to our own consciences. We create a CIA, a secret police, with a vast budget, and let them go and run these programs in our name. We pretend like we don't know what's going on, though the information is there for us to know. And we pretend like it's okay because we're fighting some vague communist threat. We're just as responsible for these ONE TO THREE MILLION PEOPLE we've slaughtered, and for all the people we've tortured and made miserable, as the Gestapo was for the people that they slaughtered and killed. Genocide is genocide !!

United States colloboration with Condor

"A key case illuminating U.S. involvement in Condor countersubversive operations was that of Chilean Jorge Isaac Fuentes Alarc=F3n, who was seized by Paraguayan police as he crossed the border from Argentina to Paraguay in May 1975. Fuentes, a sociologist, was suspected of being a courier for a Chilean leftist organization. Chile's Truth and Reconciliation Commission later learned that the capture of Fuentes was a cooperative effort by Argentine intelligence services, personnel of the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires, and Paraguayan police. Fuentes was transferred to Chilean police, who brought him to Villa Grimaldi, a notorious DINA detention center in Santiago. He was last seen there, savagely tortured."

There is nothing here, of note, even though [Michael Townley] "He planned General Carlos Prats's murder in Buenos Aires in 1974, beneath order of head of DINA Manuel Contreras, as well as Orlando Letelier's car bombing in Washington, D.C. in 1976." and "Michael Townley was then freed under witness protection programs.".

Nothing even to be concerned about.

[edit] Edited some POV, fixed some links, also removed GDR reference. It may have "Democratic" in it's name, but it was blatantly Communist. UK/USA/Fr are better examples.)

The result is that the Stasi isn't mentioned here. Xx236 14:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a ridiculously POV statement and assumption. The DDR would have argued that it was socialist under a "scientific socialist" conception of socialism (and thus, loosely speaking, communist), and also that it was democratic. The fact that you don't agree with this doesn't mean it's not a POV. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the statement in the title, I quoted it from the history of article. The author of it was 68.39.60.203 . I have restored the information about Stasi. Xx236 10:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/c/Talk%7ESecret_police_7e86.html"